Supreme Court Questions Minority School’s RTE Exemption

Source: Indian Express 

Introduction 

The Supreme Court has raised serious questions about a ten-year-old decision that gave wide exemptions to minority schools from following the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan has asked whether Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.(2014) judgment properly balanced the rights of minority-run schools with children's basic right to education. This could lead to a major review of the earlier decision. 

What was Background and Court Observations Anjuman Ishaat E Taleem Trust v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2014)? 

• The case started with appeals about whether minority schools and teachers in non-minority schools must clear the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). 
• However, the Supreme Court looked beyond this and questioned the broader impact of the Pramati judgment, which had exempted all minority schools—both government-aided and private—from following the Right to Education (RTE) Act. 
• The judges said that the 2014 judgment seemed "legally doubtful," "questionable," and too one-sided. They pointed out that the earlier ruling had excluded all minority schools from the RTE Act just by focusing on one rule—Section 12(1)(c), which requires 25% of seats to be reserved for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. 

Was the Pramati Educational & Cultural v. Union of India (2014) Judgment's Blanket Exemption Justified? 

• The Supreme Court expressed fundamental concerns about the sweeping nature of the Pramati exemption.  
• The bench argued that by completely removing minority schools from the RTE Act's purview, the judgment may have inadvertently compromised the quality education rights of children studying in these institutions.  
• The court observed that Article 21A guarantees every child a fundamental right to education, which should not be subordinated to institutional autonomy. 
• The judgment a critical constitutional conflict: while Article 30(1) protects minority groups' rights to establish and administer educational institutions, this cannot come at the expense of children's fundamental rights under Article 21A.  
• The court called for a "harmonious interpretation" where both rights "can and must co-exist mutually" rather than treating one as an "unqualified trump card" over the other. 

What is Right to Education (Article 21A) Constitution? 

• The Right to Education became a fundamental right through the 86th Amendment (2002), adding Article 21A to guarantee free and compulsory education for children aged 6–14. 
• The Supreme Court recognized this right in key cases like Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) and Unnikrishanan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), laying the groundwork for the RTE Act, 2009, which made education legally enforceable and required private schools to reserve 25% seats for disadvantaged children. 
• In Pramati Trust v. Union of India (2014), the Court held that minority institutions under Article 30 were exempt from this quota, raising questions about balancing minority rights with children's educational rights. 
• Article 21A works alongside Article 29(2) (non-discrimination), Article 30 (minority rights), and Article 51A(k) (parents' duty to educate children). 

Supreme Court’s Critique of Pramati: Should Minority Schools Be Exempt from RTE? 

• Constitutional Provisions Overlooked: The current bench criticized the Pramati judgment for failing to consider Article 29(2) and Section 23(2) of the RTE Act, which could have provided a more balanced framework. 
• Alternative Judicial Approach: The Court questioned why complete exemption was chosen instead of "reading down" Section 12(1)(c) to apply 25% reservation to disadvantaged children within the same minority community. 
• Statistical Evidence of Misuse: Data shows only 8.76% of minority school students are from disadvantaged backgrounds, while 62.5% are from non-minority communities, indicating abuse of minority status. 
• Fraudulent Minority Claims: Many private schools obtained minority status with symbolic representation post-Pramati to avoid RTE compliance, creating an unfair two-tier education system. 
• TET Implementation Guidelines: Teachers with less than five years service can continue without TET but need it for promotion; those with more time must qualify within two years or face retirement. 
• Larger Bench Referral: Four critical questions have been referred to the Chief Justice regarding  
  • Pramati's correctness,  
  • alternative interpretations,  
  • Whether the entire RTE Act should have been declared unconstitutional. 
• Constitutional Balance Needed: The judgment suggests minority institutional rights and children's educational rights should coexist rather than one overriding the other completely. 
• Systemic Reform Required: The ruling indicates need for comprehensive reconsideration to ensure minority institutions serve their communities while upholding all children's right to quality education. 

Conclusion 

This judgment marks an important moment of judicial reflection on how to balance the rights of minority-run schools with the fundamental right of children to education. By questioning the Pramati ruling, the Supreme Court has signalled a possible shift toward making sure minority institutions follow certain basic rules meant to protect children’s educational rights. The next step depends on the Chief Justice, who will decide whether a larger bench should re-examine the earlier decision. The outcome could bring major changes in how minority schools are regulated and whether their autonomy can continue to override the constitutional promise of quality education for every child.